Suchergebnisse

Research on political tolerance has made substantial progress in recent years by improving the measures used to gauge public opinion. Much attention has been devoted to developing indicators that control for group affect. Controls for activity affect have not been pursued as vigorously. Indeed, much of the progress has been along the lines of specifying tolerance for unpopular political minorities rather than tolerance for unorthodox or threatening political activities. More generally, tolerance research has not been sensitive to the variety of contextual factors that determine citizen attitudes in civil-liberties disputes.A new approach to measuring political tolerance is presented in this article. The measures developed in this approach disaggregate the traditional measures of tolerance (such as Stouffer's (1955) support for "a communist making a speech in your community"). In particular, scales measuring support for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of political association are presented. As multiple-indicator measures posing conflicts among values, these scales are related to traditional tolerance measures. However, because they reflect the complexity and conflict associated with actual civil-liberties disputes, they will no doubt serve as better predictors of opinions and behaviors in actual disputes.

Individuals have a representation of how they personally feel about issues ('actual' feelings), as well as a representation of the attitudes that they believe they should 'ideally' possess, reflecting personal values. Furthermore, existing in a social-political environment, individuals make estimations of how they believe others around them think that they 'ought' to feel. These different representations of self may conflict, especially where external constraints on political actions are present. A survey of self-discrepancies before & after the change in political system in South Africa tests whether the change in regime & possible political behaviors impacted actual, ideal, & ought attitudes about general democratic principles & their application to specific positively & negatively evaluated groups. 4 Tables. Adapted from the source document.

Over the past 25 years a number of conclusions concerning the development of political tolerance have come to be well accepted in the literature on political behavior. There are, however, two persisting problems with the studies that have generated these findings: they have relied on a content-biased measure of tolerance, and have failed to examine well specified models of the factors leading to tolerance. In this article we report the results of an analysis of the determinants of political tolerance using a content-controlled measure of tolerance and a more fully specified multivariate model. The parameters of the model are estimated from a national sample of the U.S. The results indicate the explanatory power of two political variables, the level of perceived threat and the commitment to general norms, and psychological sources of political tolerance. Social and demographic factors are found to have no direct effect and little indirect influence on the development of political tolerance.

The author endeavors to demonstrate that the realization of tolerance in a contemporary society is impossible without respecting different religious conceptions of the world. In other words, if one of such conceptions becomes politically relevant, that very fact amounts, as a rule, to some degree of restriction of other religions. This is why in the world political centers it has become obvious that only by creating legal prerequisites of ensuring the equality in status and position, it would be possible to realize political tolerance in pluri-confessional society. These prerequisites are created by enacting relevant international documents, such as the General Declaration of Human Rights and the Pact on Civil and Political Rights of Man. In such a way, and in accordance to the scope of implementation of these two documents, one may speak at present of reciprocal existence of religious tolerance in any social and political system. ; Raspravljati o religiji političkoj toleranciji nije moguće bez stavljanja ove dve tekovine ljudskog duha u konkretnu praksu. Sve religije govore o tome da su primer poštovanja slobode i da jedina prava sloboda postoji u njihovom okviru. S druge strane, istorija je bila poprište krvavih ratova u ime različitih koncepata tolerancije za koje su se zalagale pojedine religije. U savremenom svetu se pokazalo da je ostvarivanje slobodnog društva i prave tolerancije uopšte, a samim tim i političke, nemoguće bez odvajanja vere od države. Taj proces koji je dobio planetarne razmere ipak ne ide onako kako bi se to očekivalo i netolerancija izazvana, između ostalog, i religijskom isključivošću još uvek vlada u velikim delovima planete.

Studies conducted between the 1950s and 1970s found that the principles embodied in the First Amendment constituted a "clear norm" endorsed by large majorities of community leaders and virtually all legal practitioners and scholars. This consensus has since weakened under the strain of arguments that racist slurs, epithets, and other forms of expression that demean social identities are an intolerable affront to egalitarian values. Guided by the theory that norms are transmitted through social learning, we show that these developments have spurred a dramatic realignment in public tolerance of offensive expression about race, gender, and religious groups. Tolerance of such speech has declined overall, and its traditional relationships with ideology, education, and age have diminished or reversed. Speech subject to changing norms of tolerance ranges from polemic to scientific inquiry, the fringes to the mainstream of political discourse, and left to right, raising profound questions about the scope of permissible debate in contemporary American politics.

The paper draws attention to the diverse nature of the positions involved in the ongoing debate about gender. While some positions are scientific, others have a metaphysical, ethical or political character. From a liberal egalitarian paradigm, this distinction is crucial. Public institutions treat all citizens as free and equal when they are metaphysically and ethically neutral. Neutrality involves two requirements. On the one hand, public institucions must be justified on political or scientific considerations and, on the other they must not promote or endorse any ethical or metaphysical conception. ; El presente artículo llama la atención sobre la diversa naturaleza de las posiciones presentes en el debate acerca del género. Mientras algunas posiciones son de índole científica, otras son metafísicas, éticas o políticas. Desde el punto de vista del paradigma liberal igualitario, tal distinción es fundamental. Las instituciones públicas tratan a todos los ciudadanos como libres e iguales cuando son neutrales tanto a nivel metafísico como ético. La neutralidad involucra dos exigencias. Por un lado, las instituciones públicas deben justificarse sólo en base a consideraciones de índole política o científica y, por el otro, no deben promover o suscribir a ninguna concepción ética o metafísica.

THE ARTICLE DISCUSSES HOW OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS A NUMBER OF CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLITICAL TOLERANCE HAVE COME TO BE WELL ACCEPTED IN THE LITERATURE ON POLITICAL BEHAVIOR. USING DIFFERENT SOURCES AND METHODS, THE AUTHOR REPORTS ON A CONTENT-CONTROLLED MEASURE OF TOLERANCE AND A MULTIVARIATE MODEL.

El presente artículo llama la atención sobre la diversa natu- raleza de las posiciones presentes en el debate acerca del género. Mien- tras algunas posiciones son de índole científica, otras son metafísicas, éticas o políticas. Desde el punto de vista del paradigma liberal iguali- tario, tal distinción es fundamental. Las instituciones públicas tratan a todos los ciudadanos como libres e iguales cuando son neutrales tanto a nivel metafísico como ético. La neutralidad involucra dos exigencias. Por un lado, las instituciones públicas deben justificarse sólo en base a consideraciones de índole política o científica y, por el otro, no deben promover o suscribir a ninguna concepción ética o metafísica. ; The paper draws attention to the diverse nature of the positions involved in the ongoing debate about gender. While some po- sitions are scientific, others have a metaphysical, ethical or political character. From a liberal egalitarian paradigm, this distinction is cru- cial. Public institutions treat all citizens as free and equal when they are metaphysically and ethically neutral. Neutrality involves two re- quirements. On the one hand, public institucions must be justified on political or scientific considerations and, on the other they must not promote or endorse any ethical or metaphysical conception. ; Fil: Seleme, Hugo Omar. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina

The aim of this study was to explain political tolerance for Muslims from an intergroup perspective. Explanatory mechanisms were derived from integrated threat theory, social identity theory, and the contact and multiculturalism hypotheses. Our results, based on survey data among Dutch youth and by using structural equation modeling, revealed that endorsement of multiculturalism and perceived symbolic and safety threat were the main determinants of political tolerance. Furthermore, we compared the explanatory model for prejudiced and nonprejudiced participants. Perceived safety threat was not associated with tolerance judgments among the nonprejudiced participants. All other relationships were similar for the two groups of participants.